Dataset Information

Targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control for type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the benefits and harms of targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Design

A systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.

Data sources

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and LILACS to January 2013.

Study selection

Randomised clinical trials that prespecified different targets of glycaemic control in participants at any age with type 1 diabetes mellitus were included.

Data extraction

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data.

Results

18 randomised clinical trials included 2254 participants with type 1 diabetes mellitus. All trials had high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of targeting intensive glycaemic control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.08) or cardiovascular mortality (0.49, 0.19 to 1.24). Targeting intensive glycaemic control reduced the relative risks for the composite macrovascular outcome (0.63, 0.41 to 0.96; p=0.03), and nephropathy (0.37, 0.27 to 0.50; p<0.00001. The effect estimates of retinopathy, ketoacidosis and retinal photocoagulation were not consistently statistically significant between random and fixed effects models. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia was significantly increased with intensive glycaemic targets (1.40, 1.01 to 1.94). Trial sequential analyses showed that the amount of data needed to demonstrate a relative risk reduction of 10% were, in general, inadequate.

Conclusions

There was no significant effect towards improved all-cause mortality when targeting intensive glycaemic control compared with conventional glycaemic control. However, there may be beneficial effects of targeting intensive glycaemic control on the composite macrovascular outcome and on nephropathy, and detrimental effects on severe hypoglycaemia. Notably, the data for retinopathy and ketoacidosis were inconsistent. There was a severe lack of reporting on patient relevant outcomes, and all trials had poor bias control.

SUBMITTER: Kahler P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4139659 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control for type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.

Kähler Pernille P Grevstad Berit B Almdal Thomas T Gluud Christian C Wetterslev Jørn J Lund Søren Søgaard SS Vaag Allan A Hemmingsen Bianca B

BMJ open 20140819 8

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the benefits and harms of targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.<h4>Design</h4>A systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.<h4>Data sources</h4>The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and LILACS to January 2013.<h4>Study selection</h4>Randomised clinical trials that prespecified different targets of glycaemic control in pa ...[more]

PMID: 25138801

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effect of targeting intensive glycaemic control versus conventional glycaemic control on all cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, microvascular complications, and severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.DesignSystematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised trials.Data sourcesCochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and CINAHL to December 2010; hand search of reference lists and conference proceedings; contacts with authors, relevant pharmaceutical companies, and the US Food and Drug Administration.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials comparing targeted intensive glycaemic control with conventional glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Published and unpublished trials in all languages were included, irrespective of predefined outcomes.Data extractionTwo reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data related to study methods, interventions, outcomes, risk of bias, and adverse events. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models.ResultsFourteen clinical trials that randomised 28,614 participants with type 2 diabetes (15,269 to intensive control and 13,345 to conventional control) were included. Intensive glycaemic control did not significantly affect the relative risks of all cause (1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.13; 28,359 participants, 12 trials) or cardiovascular mortality (1.11, 0.92 to 1.35; 28,359 participants, 12 trials). Trial sequential analyses rejected a relative risk reduction above 10% for all cause mortality and showed insufficient data on cardiovascular mortality. The risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction may be reduced (relative risk 0.85, 0.76 to 0.95; P=0.004; 28,111 participants, 8 trials), but this finding was not confirmed in trial sequential analysis. Intensive glycaemic control showed a reduction of the relative risks for the composite microvascular outcome (0.88, 0.79 to 0.97; P=0.01; 25,600 participants, 3 trials) and retinopathy (0.80, 0.67 to 0.94; P=0.009; 10,793 participants, 7 trials), but trial sequential analyses showed that sufficient evidence had not yet been reached. The estimate of an effect on the risk of nephropathy (relative risk 0.83, 0.64 to 1.06; 27,769 participants, 8 trials) was not statistically significant. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia was significantly increased when intensive glycaemic control was targeted (relative risk 2.39, 1.71 to 3.34; 27,844 participants, 9 trials); trial sequential analysis supported a 30% increased relative risk of severe hypoglycaemia.ConclusionIntensive glycaemic control does not seem to reduce all cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. Data available from randomised clinical trials remain insufficient to prove or refute a relative risk reduction for cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, composite microvascular complications, or retinopathy at a magnitude of 10%. Intensive glycaemic control increases the relative risk of severe hypoglycaemia by 30%.

Project description:IntroductionTraditional carotid endarterectomy is considered to be the standard technique for prevention of a new stroke in patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis. Use of patch angioplasty to restore the arterial wall after longitudinal endarterectomy is, to date, not unequivocally proven to be superior to eversion technique. A systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms of the eversion technique versus the traditional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis.Methods and outcomesThe review will be conducted according to this protocol following the recommendations of the 'Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews' and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Randomised clinical trials comparing eversion technique versus endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with a symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery will be included. Primary outcomes are all-cause mortality rate, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes are 30-day stroke and mortality rate, symptomatic arterial restenosis or occlusion and non-serious adverse events. The databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE will be searched (November 2019). We will primarily base our conclusions on meta-analyses of trials with overall low-risk of bias. We will use trial sequential analysis to assist the evaluation of imprecision in Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. However, if pooled point estimates of all trials are similar to pooled point estimates of trials with overall low risk of bias and there is lack of a statistical significant interaction between estimates from trials with overall high risk of bias and trials with overall low risk of bias we will consider the trial sequential analysis adjusted precision of the estimate achieved in all trials as the result of our meta-analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed systematic review will collect and analyse data from published studies, therefore, ethical approval is not required. The results of the review will be disseminated by publication in a peer-review journal and submitted for presentation at conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42019119361.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Guidelines, including the 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association blood pressure guideline, recommend tighter control of systolic blood pressure in people with type 2 diabetes. However, it is unclear whether intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure increases the incidence of chronic kidney disease in this population. We aimed to compare the effects of intensive systolic blood pressure control on incident chronic kidney disease in people with and without type 2 diabetes. METHODS:The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) tested the effects of a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive intervention) versus a goal of less than 140 mm Hg (standard intervention) in people without diabetes. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) blood pressure trial tested a similar systolic blood pressure intervention in people with type 2 diabetes. Our study is a secondary analysis of limited access datasets from SPRINT and the ACCORD trial obtained from the National Institutes of Health. In participants without chronic kidney disease at baseline (n=4311 in the ACCORD trial; n=6715 in SPRINT), we related systolic blood pressure interventions (intensive vs standard) to incident chronic kidney disease (defined as >30% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] to <60 mL/min per 1·73 m2). These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01206062 (SPRINT) and NCT00000620 (ACCORD trial). FINDINGS:The average difference in systolic blood pressure between intensive and standard interventions was 13·9 mm Hg (95% CI 13·4-14·4) in the ACCORD trial and 15·2 mm Hg (14·8-15·6) in SPRINT. At 3 years, the cumulative incidence of chronic kidney disease in the ACCORD trial was 10·0% (95% CI 8·8-11·4) with the intensive intervention and 4·1% (3·3-5·1) with the standard intervention (absolute risk difference 5·9%, 95% CI 4·3-7·5). Corresponding values in SPRINT were 3·5% (95% CI 2·9-4·2) and 1·0% (0·7-1·4; absolute risk difference 2·5%, 95% CI 1·8-3·2). The absolute risk difference was significantly higher in the ACCORD trial than in SPRINT (p=0·0001 for interaction). INTERPRETATION:Intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure increased the risk of incident chronic kidney disease in people with and without type 2 diabetes. However, the absolute risk of incident chronic kidney disease was higher in people with type 2 diabetes. Our findings suggest the need for vigilance in monitoring kidney function during intensive antihypertensive drug treatment, particularly in adults with diabetes. Long-term studies are needed to understand the clinical implications of antihypertensive treatment-related reductions in eGFR. FUNDING:National Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundDiabetes is now a global epidemic, but most cases are now in low- and middle-income countries. Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is key to enabling patients to manage their chronic condition and can reduce the occurrence of costly and devastating complications. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of different DSME programmes in resource limited settings.MethodsWe conducted an unblinded, parallel-group, individually-randomised controlled trial at the University of Calabar Teaching Hospital (Nigeria) to evaluate whether an intensive and systematic DSME programme, using structured guidelines, improved glycaemic control compared to the existing ad hoc patient education (clinical practice was unchanged). Eligible patients (≥18 years, HbA1c > 8.5% and physically able to participate) were randomly allocated by permuted block randomisation to participate for six months in either an intensive or conventional education group. The primary outcome was HbA1c (%) at six-months.ResultsWe randomised 59 participants to each group and obtained six-month HbA1c outcomes from 53 and 51 participants in the intensive and conventional education groups, respectively. Intensive group participants had a mean six-month HbA1c (%) of 8.4 (95% CI: 8 to 8.9), while participants in the conventional education group had a mean six-month HbA1c (%) of 10.2 (95% CI: 9.8 to 10.7). The difference was statistically (P < 0.0001) and clinically significant, with intensive group participants having HbA1c outcomes on average -1.8 (95% CI: -2.4 to -1.2) percentage points lower than conventional group participants. Results were robust to adjustment for a range of covariates and multiple imputation of missing outcome data.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the effectiveness of a structured, guideline-based DSME intervention in a LMIC setting versus a pragmatic comparator. The intervention is potentially replicable at other levels of the Nigerian healthcare system and in other LMICs, where nurses/diabetes educators can run the programme.Trial registrationPan African Clinical Trial Registry PACTR20130200047835.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the cardiovascular outcomes and other outcomes associated with angiotensin receptor blockers.DesignSystematic review of randomised controlled trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).Data sources and study selectionPubmed, Embase, and CENTRAL searches for randomised clinical trials, until August 2010, of angiotensin receptor blockers compared with controls (placebo/active treatment) that enrolled at least 100 participants and had a follow-up of at least one year.Data extractionMyocardial infarction, death, cardiovascular death, angina pectoris, stroke, heart failure, and new onset diabetes.Results37 randomised clinical trials included 147,020 participants and had a total follow-up of 485,166 patient years. When compared with controls (placebo/active treatment), placebo, or active treatment, angiotensin receptor blockers were not associated with an increase in the risk of myocardial infarction (relative risk 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.07), death, cardiovascular death, or angina pectoris. Compared with controls, angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with a reduction in the risk of stroke (0.90, 0.84 to 0.98), heart failure (0.87, 0.81 to 0.93), and new onset diabetes (0.85, 0.78 to 0.93), with similar results when compared with placebo or with active treatment. Based on trial sequential analysis, there is no evidence even for an average 5.0-7.5% (upper confidence interval 5-11%) relative increase in myocardial infarction (absolute increase of 0.3%), death, or cardiovascular death with firm evidence for relative risk reduction of stroke (at least 1%, average 10%) (compared with placebo only), heart failure (at least 5%, average 10%), and new onset diabetes (at least 4%, average 10%) with angiotensin receptor blockers compared with controls.ConclusionsThis large and comprehensive analysis produced firm evidence to refute the hypothesis that angiotensin receptor blockers increase the risk of myocardial infarction (ruling out even a 0.3% absolute increase). Compared with controls, angiotensin receptor blockers reduce the risk of stroke, heart failure, and new onset diabetes.

Project description:BackgroundBioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) were designed to reduce the rate of late adverse events observed in conventional drug-eluting stents (DES) by dissolving once they have restored lasting patency.ObjectivesCompare the safety and efficacy of BVS versus DES in patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary artery disease across a complete range of randomised controlled trial (RCT) follow-up intervals.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from inception through 5 January 2022 for RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes of BVS versus DES. The primary safety outcome was stent/scaffold thrombosis (ST), and the primary efficacy outcome was target lesion failure (TLF: composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (ID-TLR)). Secondary outcomes were patient-oriented composite endpoint (combining all-death, all-MI and all-revascularisation), its individual components and those of TLF. Studies were appraised using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan V.5.4.Results11 919 patients were randomised to receive either BVS (n=6438) or DES (n=5481) across 17 trials (differing follow-up intervals from 3 months to 5 years). BVS demonstrated increased risk of ST across all timepoints (peaking at 2 years with risk ratio (RR): 3.47; 95% CI 1.80 to 6.70; p=0.0002). Similarly, they showed increased risk of TLF (peaking at 3 years, RR: 1.35; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.70; p=0.01) resulting from high rates of TVMI and ID-TLR. Though improvements were observed after device dissolution (5-year follow-up), these were non-significant. All other outcomes were statistically equivalent. Applicability to all BVS is limited by 91% of the BVS group receiving Abbott's Absorb.ConclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrates that current BVS are inferior to contemporary DES throughout the first 5 years at minimum.

Dataset Information

Targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control for type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control for type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets